TMI Blog2009 (5) TMI 56X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Vikramajit Sen and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Shakdher S/Shri J.K. Mittal with Sunil Upadhyay, Advs. for Appellant. S/Shri Mukesh Anand with Shailesh Tiwari, Sunit Batra, Vaibhav Jain and RCS Bhadauria, Advs. for Respondent. ORDER The assessee has preferred the present appeal against the judgment dated 25.8.2008 passed in ST/221/2008 [2008 (88) RLT 953 (CESTAT-Del.) by the Customs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se of Hindustan Zinc Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur - 2008 (87) RLT 317 = 2008 (11) STR 338 came to the conclusion that since Notification No. 36/2004-S.T., dated 31.12.2004 issued under the provisions of Section 68 (2) of the Finance Act, 1994 by which the assessee as the recipient became liable to pay service tax, came into effect from 1.1.2005, the assessee was liable to pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee w.e.f. 15.6.2005. It is, however, the contention of the assessee that in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of Bombay High Court passed in Writ Petition No. 1449/2006 dated 11.12.2008 entitled Indian National Shipowners Association Vs. Union of India [2009 (90) RLT 739 (Bom.) = 2009 (13) STR 235 (Bom.)] it stands declared that the Revenue can collect tax only upon being investe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tself in law in coming to the conclusion that the assessee will be liable to pay service tax for the period 1.1.2005 to 15.6.2005? 5.2 The answer to the question is squarely covered by the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Indian National Shipowners Association (supra) with which were in respectful agreement. Accordingly, the question of law is answered in favour of the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
